IMO, the reference to "good Americans" is a bit vague. You have to define the parameters for which you are looking for an answer. Remember we all have opinions and assumptions. What you might view as good could be ultra-left wing liberal. Which in those days of the early colonists they were definitely not a free hug and stick a flower in the gun barrel liberal. They were fighting for their very own existence and to also self-govern themselves.
I don't see how Americans still are not fighting this struggle. Take a trip to an inner city and see people struggling to get by each day. And our government has become a two party joke, where the tyranny of the majority rules the minority. America is not a democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic. The majority cannot take away the rights of the individual.
The times between then and now are as far apart as Hillary and Bill's Beds are. Believe I know what it is to struggle and be without. Also, there is no need to allude to the "inner city" struggle. That's just hogwash because I grew up in that struggle only to find out that the only thing holding me back were people in the community constantly telling me " You can't do that, the white man won't let you", crap. Everyone has circumstances and crosses to bear. The difference is in the individual's demeanor to pick himself up off the ground and get rolling with increasing their own and their family's well-being.
You can't do that without economic freedom. You can't do that without rights as an individual. The lower class is growing, and yet the sheeps bleat about economic prosperity. Come to Detroit and see what economic prosperity looks like. Abandoned plants, 75,000 people living out their buyouts, and a shrinking manufacturing base that was once the envy of the world. To have hope, you need opportunity. As long as the welfare state and corporatism continues, the low will stay low for lack of incentive, and the rich will continue to get richer.
Ask yourself how do the rich become richer? Surely can't be off the lower class. If they have nothing then who are the consumers of the rich? Stop living in a place where the markets have died, move on or pray for a renaissance. Opportunity isn't just given it can and should be created by the individual.
So you're saying that it is not possible to make money off of legislated services and no bid contracts? That it's not possible to get rich off of encouraging social spending, then loaning the money to the government at interest to accomplish it? The markets are never healthy when they are regulated, lobbied and shaped by the policies of politicians. I agree. But the more barriers that are created, the harder and longer the process. Gtech, I just wanted to tell you I appreciate your 10/6 4:01 am post. Thanks. Regarding people "hiding" behind the Constitution, it's there as a shield. It's there to protect unpopular speech, if the ruling party ever ended up with blowhards like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly saying people who disagree with government are anti-American. I really, really take it personal when people attack the Constitution. If we can't find common ground, maybe it is something we should avoid discussing.
Thank you, guerilla. We can agree it's there to protect such speech. I've never seen either person you reference say that people who disagree with government are anti-American. If that were the case, I'd be such myself. Any American that is disgruntled come April 15th, would be as well. These are different situations though. I also believe some are people in this country who really are anti-American. There's nothing wrong with being aware of that, or highlighting things that would be indicators of such. I haven't seen *anyone* period say such a thing. I do believe there is a difference between disagreement and ceaseless attacks. I'm not aware of anyone that has attacked the Constitution. That would be a pretty serious thread if someone did. I always enjoying talking about the Constitution. Every time I do, I learn something new. The Constitution is there to protect the disenchanted as much as it is for those who are not. Peace.
Too bad that's not what rush said. You are just falling for the same, tired trap. Guerilla. Try to be honest, k?
Do you mean before or after they edited the transcript and broadcast? Did you see the response he gave to the vet who called him out on it? The guy had taken a serious injury for his country, and Rush suggested that he was misguided and being manipulated. You'll have a hard time convincing me that Rush isn't a dirtbag. He was the guy who called Chuck Hagel, a decorated veteran, Senator Betray Us long before the MoveOn ad. I can't understand why people can condemn MoveOn and not condemn Rush.
Because Moveover is financed by an individual who has a serious anti-American agenda and would like nothing less than to see these wonderful United States join some form of one governing body like the EU. BTW, it's not cool to flaunt your "decorated" veteran status whenever the wind blows and you want people to think that you are some kind of "Patriot".
I mean the actual broadcast. The context was clear - he was referring to people like beauchamp (who made up stories from iraq), jesse whatever his name was (who lied about going to iraq and made up war crimes and is now facing prison) and random people who pretended to be in the military just to get benefits. Who were a feature of ABC news 2 days previous (no outrage there, though, curiously enough). That's fine. I'm not a big fan of Rush either. I'm just makin the point that this was taken out of context. Media matters got taken over the coals after trying to smear o'reilly, and it happened again when they tried it with rush. Notice how quickly the real media backed away from the story right after the context was made apparent over and over again. They didn't wanna look silly. Never heard that comment; but what -was- funny was that Harkin came to the floor to bash Rush and Harkin, himself, is a phony soldier. Isn't he? http://www.instapundit.com/archives/017246.php Harkin lied about his own military service back in the 90's - so I think Harkin was just feeling a little targeted here. Feelin' a little guilty, mayhaps. Or conversely, I suppose. Why are the people miffed about Rush not miffed about MoveOn. I believe you tried to defend MoveOn, didn't you, by turning the tables on Bush in your post about the ad. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?p=4497731&highlight=moveon#post4497731
Referring to Hagel, Murtha, Harkin...and other trifling Demon-cats lurking in the shadows with a chest full of Army/Navy surplus store medals and ribbons.
I don't understand why they had to edit the transcript and broadcast then. I thought I made my position on this pretty clear. Petraeus shouldn't have been attacked as a military man, but his commander-in-chief put him in the line of fire by politicizing his report. It backfired, and Petraeus got hit with shrapnel. Bush is the politician, Petraeus is the military man. Military people answer to the chain of command, Politicians to the people. I'll defend to the death MoveOn's right to criticize politics. Doesn't mean I agree with the message, but I will defend their right, and in my mind, Petraeus was performing in a political capacity during the report, not a military one. So the medals they earned in combat and service are worthy only of a surplus store? You're basically pissing on veterans because you don't agree with your views. Is that how you regard service to the country?
No one editing anything, that I'm aware of. Source? Limbaugh's situation was a scam by democrats. Of course, one that were traditionally a democrat, pretending to be a republican to vote for a libertarian might take sides with the democrats, but it was more than proven in terms of the context. Democrats are always putting soldiers down. Ried proclaimed their defeat earlier this year, murtha convicted marines that have since been absolved, kerry called soldiers dumb (but he's been selling out soldiers all his life, so no big surprise there). Taking an stand on something that is dishonest in the first place, isn't really taking a stand. It sort of opens the eyes of others.
I'll check back in with you tomorrow. I know tonight is a busy night for Ron Paul supporters, organizing the attack of online polls after the Republican debate. Vote, delete cookies, vote, delete cookies. It's a daunting task. Did I miss the source for an edited transcript? Or should we just set that one aside for now? Good luck on the polls.
Of course, you insist it's cookies when we would win the text message polls, and it's been proven those cannot be faked. It was on Olbermann, I'll dig up the Youtube tomorrow. lol. The michigan rally afterwards turned out 2,000 supporters. The online polls are meaningless now. The CNBC ballot was removed when Paul hit 80%. We're killing the MSNBC poll though. I'm sure they will take that down soon enough. I'm going to come clean on this. It's really just 7 of us, viewing thousands of YouTube videos, making $40 donations (to equal $5.1 million), signing up for MeetUp over and over. The 2,000 people at the rally were told that they could get free Detroit Lions tickets. When there was 1500+ for Paul in Tennessee on the weekend, we used mirrors. The Texas straw poll that was limited to former Texas GOP delegates, well we drugged and hypnotized a bunch of people to vote Paul's way. Oh shoot, might as well own up to the 3 phony soldiers we are hiding who tipped the scales for Paul in veteran and military contributions. GTech, what are you going to do when you wake up under the watch of President Ron Paul and America is not destroyed? lmao
Your evidence that Petraus' comments were politicized by anyone, except Moveon.org is? Moveon put out the hit before they even knew what was gonna be said. Defend the smear job. Fine, I think it's cute and all. You are just playing the game moveon demands you to play. Congress demanded that Petraeus come forth and give testimony, didn't they? So who put him in this position again? It's all very confusing sometimes Democrats, before the testimony even began said they wouldn't believe anything he said. I'm very confused as to who's politicizing what. From everything we've seen recently, Petraus' comments were dead on. I don't think anyone is out there poking holes in anything he's said. Have they? Doesn't that instantly speak against any sort of political foul play? As Adam on Mythbusters would say. Well, there's your problem right there. Listening to Olbermann